I Believe God Exists

[Berati]

Hi, newbie here. Nice to meet you all.

For my first post I'll take a shot at the major problems with Casparov's line of reasoning.

The first major problem is his repeated claim that “the Material Objective Universe is a positive claim”
It is NOT a positive claim, it is a shared experience. If we both see a tree, touch the tree, smell the tree, sit on the tree and so on… we share the experience of the tree. Any claim that the tree is an illusion is therefore the positive claim and is what needs to be proven. Casporov is attempting to shift the burden of proof to avoid the sticky problem of proving his claim that there are more “things” than we can observe. One of those things being the amorphous “God” he wishes to prove the existence of. It seems to me that many of his detractors failed to catch his switch and accepted a burden of proof problem that was never theirs.

The second major problem is that he is asking for scientific proof to an unscientific question. In other words he is violating the principal of falsifiability. Solipsism (questioning reality) is a philosophical problem, not a scientific one (as there is no way to falsify the concept)
Since solopsism deals with questions that cannot be answered by observation or experiment it follows that demanding scientific proof of a purely philosophical question is invalid. He is conflating philosophy with science.

Casparov, you can believe anything you want, but you cannot claim that your belief is supported in anyway by facts, evidence or logic.

[stromboli]

Lol. Welcome to the party. good first post.

[leo]

What's the name of that god and his attributes anyway?  Only one god ? Why not millions ?                             

[leo]

Welcome berati. Your first post is spot on.

[josephpalazzo]

Kind sir,

You have just called me a "fucking moron or a troll" on the grounds that I "can't distinguish the difference between a conclusion and an assumption." Now then, following your logic, if it turns out that you are in fact the one who has gotten the two mixed up, would that then in all fairness make you the "fucking moron or a troll"?

A conclusion is something one arrives at after having discovered evidence that a given claim is true. For instance: That time slows down at very high velocities is a conclusion, because we have observed clocks tick more slowly when in planes traveling at several times the speed of sound compared to clocks that are stationary. There exists evidence, and therefore we have a conclusion.

An assumption is something that is not based on evidence but is merely "assumed" without evidence. It is something simply "taken for granted". For instance: That we live in a Geocentric Universe was an assumption that was held by the world's scientists for over 2000 years. It was simply "taken for granted", though still entirely accepted as Truth by the Scientific Community. It was an assumption.

There is no scientific experiment that "concluded" that Materialism is True. It doesn't exist. There is no "proof" which has lead us to "conclude" that Materialism is true. It is quite simply, an assumption. Materialism is assumed to be the case, taken for granted as true, without proof, by the Scientific Community, and you.

You seem to argue that Materialism is a "conclusion", and if this indeed so, I am simply asking for the experiment, the evidence, the proof, that has lead to this "conclusion."

If you should discover that there is no evidence, no proof, no scientific experiment that has lead us to "conclude" that materialism, is true... It would then seem logical to admit the obvious, that Materialism is simply an assumption.

And I will accept your apology at that time for calling me names on a false accusation. An accusation you are ironically guilty of after closer examination.

No one disprove the existence of the luminiferous aether either, yet no one in science believes in it, why? When it was postulated in the 19th century, it was in line that everything we knew that was made up of waves had to move in a medium. Light was made up of waves accoding to the Maxwell's equations, therefore it had to move in a medium, hence the luminiferous aether. But tests after tests, no one could measure any effect of this wonderful luminiferous aether. So it had to be abandoned. It was deemed superfluous.

Go back 500 years, just when the scientific method was being adopted throughout Europe. In those days, people believed not only in gods but also in demons, angels, goblins, witches, sorcerers, faieries, lepechrauns, and a whole slew of creatures that inhabited the ''other world'', a.k.a the spiritual/immaterial world. Well, after 500 years of the scientific method in place, no evidence has ever come up to support the existence of this immaterial  world. So how long do we need to wait before we can say, the immaterial doesn't exist? You want to claim that it exists then the burden is on YOU to prove your case. So far, lots of big words from you but not a shred of evidence.

[stromboli]

I think at this point we've reached the "beating a dead horse" stage. Soon as he got into the metaphysical Brahmin/god within, it was pretty much over, if not before that.

[La Dolce Vita]

If a character in GTA5 takes your advise and goes and plays in traffic he will get hit by a car. This must prove that he exists in a Material Objective Universe right?

If you are brain in a jar hooked up to computer that is simulating a 'physical' universe, and you run out in traffic, you will get hit by a car. Therefore, you were existing in a Material Objective Universe right?

If I am having a dream and I run out in traffic I will get hit by a car, therefore, I was existing in a Material Objective Universe right?

I'm confused at what you consider a material universe. For all intents and purposed the characters in GTA5 do exist in a material universe. Cause and effect. We could easily all be in a computer simulation as well, but that would not change a single thing. I'm confused as to why you think it would. Nothing in "our reality" be any different. Our definitions would only exist within this reality. A chair would still be a chair, just as a chair in GTA5 is a chair in that universe. Of course, if we are in fact in a simulation we are in an almost infinitely superior one.

Now, let's backtrack, you dismiss a material universe, which all evidence supports, and cling to the completely unsupported idea that a being/force/mind lives within the universe. What supports materialism? Absolutely everything. Everything we have ever found is material. We have never found anything immaterial. And no, GTA5 is not evidence of something immaterial. GTA5 is demonstrably material as well. The codes exist. What they transcribe exist. It exists just as much as this forum you are currently writing in.

(It has also been clear that you were a troll from the very first post and you should have been banned then) 

[leo]

 Casparov how often do you crap and fart?

[SGOS]

(It has also been clear that you were a troll from the very first post and you should have been banned then) 

He strikes me as the type who got a bit of egg on the face in another discussion group somewhere.  He realized that what he was presenting as evidence wasn't evidence, and then tried the, "Well you prove it's not true," routine and was laughed out of the place.

Now armed with a little bit of dangerous understanding, and some crazy bullshit about things not existing, he's trying to regain some stature by challenging the forum to prove reality exists... or something.  Now, he knows about shitty evidence, because that's where he found himself so confounded before.  From what he's learned, he assumes that the "Your evidence is shit" strategy is an unbeatable tactic.

That's why he hasn't followed up with evidence of his own or really taken the discussion anyplace at all.  He's comfortable in a place where he just sits there and says, "You can't prove it."  And it's taken a zillion posts to not get anywhere.

[Berati]

(It has also been clear that you were a troll from the very first post and you should have been banned then)

I read the whole thread and it seems to me that he is sincere in his belief. But it also seems clear that he has accepted a bs line of reasoning (that questioning reality should be the default position) in order to allow himself the freedom to follow this cherished belief. Without the desire for the outcome he seeks, I don't think he would have made an error he seems capable of understanding.

[SGOS]

it also seems clear that he has accepted a bs line of reasoning (that questioning reality should be the default position)

Very possibly.  I wouldn't go so far as to say he's a troll, but certainly obsessed with a bizarre argument about materialism.  He could be trolling, but that feeling is near the bottom of my guess list too.  I think he feels he's got to get a concession on the reality thing, believing that will allow him to set up some slam dunk about the existence of God.  Although, I don't actually see how such a concession would be relevant to that argument.

[Contemporary Protestant]

I would like to let him have it, just to see what he does

[stromboli]

So from now on I'm just going to tell people I'm a Panentheist and watch their eyes glaze over. Could be fun.

[aitm]

I do that now as a  Panotheust. They get all wired out, and when I tell them inevitably the creation is greater than the creator the get wiggy on me....its not much fun but it IS fun.

[stromboli]

I don't get invited out much anyway so fuck it.